I have two main suggestions I want to make in this thread, though the title gives a good idea of what I'm aiming for. Like a lot of people I'm mostly excited about what the Evolved jobs can do for the game, and I'm eager to try them out, but I have concerns about the MT/OT split.

Whether or not it's reasonable "MT" and "OT" have a stigma of being the "Leader" and "Follower," #1 and #2, which makes people fairly opinionated on what position they want to play. Instead of splitting the tanks into aggro position, maintain the distinct design style of the 1-target vs multi-target defense, but allow each specialization to benefit from its kit regardless as to whether it is holding aggro. (For example, paladins can still counter/retaliate an attack even if it isn't aimed at them directly.) Their strength is still defending a single target, but that could either be themselves or their partner.

This keeps "MT" jobs from losing benefits of their class during tank swaps or split tank mechanics, and allows every tank player to choose the position they prefer, while demanding different approaches from each for optimal play. "MT" jobs can still have more defense than "OT" jobs, but the optimal position for each class will depend on context. It'll keep the two lanes distinct without causing too much player friction over who likes (or dislikes) to be in the driver's seat.

At that point, the "MT/OT" issue is just branding, so you could call them something different. I propose "Shield tank" and "Sword tank" but the names themselves don't matter as long as they don't imply the aggro position.

I think all of us are excited to see classes become more unique and lean into their strengths, so either way I'm looking to approach evolved tanks with an open mind.